Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 14

Article reads like a hit piece -- neutrality disputed
This article does not read like a neutral assessment of the subject matter, it reads like a hit piece aimed at attacking a viewpoint or ideology, written by people opposed to it. It also makes categorical assertions that seek to demonize rather than enlighten.

It relies heavily on "reliable sources" that are mostly academics on the other side of the ideological divide, and whose "research" heavily overlaps with activism.

It's notable that other articles on Wikipedia on the sexual revolution do not seek to portray anti-marriage views in such a way - nor are radical feminists who advocate separatism portrayed categorically as "man-haters". Nor does it link to or refer to these other, similar and connected movements.

It's also notable that the most active editor of this page "GorillaWarfare" is a notorious feminist agitator, which singularly raises questions over the overall neutrality of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doaks88 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC) — Doaks88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I strongly urge this article be tagged as neutrality disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doaks88 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC) — Doaks88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You are welcome to edit the article, so long as your changes follow the WP:NPOV principles, and can be backed by reliable sources. If you cannot provide reliable sources for your assertions, they will be removed. If you want more information on the background behind this, and how it fits in with Wikipedia's editing policies, reading the discussions above on this page may provide some help. -- The Anome (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not really, the article is locked.Doaks88 (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC) — Doaks88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * , If you click the little padlock, top right hand corner of the article, you will see with precision what it means. Fiddle   Faddle  20:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe Doaks88 is correct that they won't be able to edit this article directly at the moment—with only three edits and an account created today, they are not yet autoconfirmed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , Indeed. I wanted to be sure they had seen for themselves.Though they seem to have more knowledge and skill than such a small number of edits and a short time period might suggest Fiddle   Faddle  21:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 🤔--Jorm (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Notorious feminist agitator?" I'm flattered. Anyway, regarding your complaint: It relies heavily on "reliable sources" that are mostly academics on the other side of the ideological divide, and whose "research" heavily overlaps with activism. If you know of other similarly reliable sources that aren't being used here that you feel would provide a different perspective, please suggest them. As for your complaints about this article's portrayal of MGTOW, can you clarify: do you feel the portrayal of MGTOW in this article doesn't reflect the reliable sources that are currently being used? If so, can you explain specifically how? And if you feel the portrayal does reflect the current sourcing but is not representative of the overall available reliable sourcing about MGTOW, again, please provide new sources that you think are being omitted. If neither of those two scenarios is the case, can you please go into more detail about how exactly you feel it is non-neutral? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * the absence of one things does not justify another. One could easily find ample "academic sources" that describe Christianity in all sorts of extreme negative ways -- yet you won't find Christianity categorically demonized in it's opening paragraph. Anyway I don't need to argue with you about the subject matter, I just wanted to state that they article is clearly heavily biased, is in direct violation of the NPOV requirements of wikipedia, and I assert that no reasonably detached observer would come to any other conclusion. MGTOW is not principally misogynist, nor even "anti-women" (although it may attract such expressions at times)- it is clearly primarily a reaction to feminist motivated public policy and social changes, so yes it could be described as anti-feminist but not much more. I also find it remarkable that Wikipedia can acknowledge that controversial issues exist in society, but then go glibly cherry-pick one-sided extreme ideological activistism (operating under the pretext of academia) as "reliable sources", while claiming neutrality. I dispute your sources are reliable, and on controversial issues, reliability is difficult to find as almost all publications are heavily skewed by ideological bias. In such cases, Wikipedia should seek to firstly acknowledge the essential controversy, and represent a range of views without trying to make categorical findings about groups of people or their viewpoints, which is exactly what this article does.Doaks88 (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC) — Doaks88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Awwwwyeaaaaaah! Coming in with all the chestnuts and an assumption of bad faith! --Jorm (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely correct on the Christianity example. WP:NPOV requires that articles represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and so cherrypicking only the extremely negative sources about Christianity would contravene NPOV. However, in this case, the reliable sources all seem to describe MGTOW as it is described in this article—that is why I am asking you for additional sources that reflect a viewpoint that is not being reflected here. If they do not exist, which is what I think you are saying by "the absence of one things does not justify another", then this article is accurately reflecting the reliable sources on the topic.


 * As for your comment that the sources here are not reliable (all of them?), WP:RS is quite clear that When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources, and this article primarily relies on those sources, as well as two books from reputable publishers. If you want to discuss the reliability of a particular source I'd be happy to, but if you're saying all nineteen of the sources on this page are unusable then I don't know what to tell you, other than that you would have to explore somehow finding consensus for a fundamental change to a policy WP:RS to say that scholarly sources are somehow not usable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * as I said, I dispute your sources are reliable. And your disingenuous arguments limit your credibility. There are certain issues in society that revolve around extremely polarized opinions and viewpoints, and what you refer to as "academia" often aligns with one side of an ideological debate or divide, especially on controversial political/social issues. But the core issue with this article is it is not seeking to simply represent views from reliable sources, but make *categorical assertions about groups of people and their viewpoints based on their political/ideological opponents*. You could have a section like "criticism" but instead you fold that criticism into absolute assertions based upon what their opponents are saying, and then turn that into a statement of fact. And the fact you come here aiming to commit that kind of misrepresentation as a form of "warefare", *and* are somehow considered a kind of trust-worthy editor here is disturbing. But as I said, I am not looking to have or win any debates on the subject matter, I just want to clearly assert that the article is clearly not written from a NPOV standpoint, and should be marked accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doaks88 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC) — Doaks88 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you indeed claiming that all nineteen sources in this article are unreliable? Because like I said above, if that is the case, it seems you may have an issue with the entire reliable sourcing policy on Wikipedia.
 * Like I said, to the best of my knowledge this article reflects the viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources, which is what WP:NPOV requires. Unless you can actually point to specific sources that provide a viewpoint that is not being reflected here, there is no reason to add the POV tag—you can't decide something is NPOV based on hypothetical sources that might exist somewhere. Furthermore, those POV tags are helpful to signal for help if you have identified specific concerns with an article but are unable to fix them yourself for whatever reason. You currently have the attention of myself and at least three other editors, plus 239 editors have the page on their watchlist. As specified on the usage instructions on that tag, The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. I am not sure why you want to mark the article with an POV tag, but not actually resolve the issues with the article—either way, that's not going to happen. Either you can articulate specifically what NPOV issues you are seeing and we can address them, or not, but there is no point to adding a tag when several editors are attentively listening to your concerns. If you are for whatever reason not satisfied with the editors who are currently replying to you, that too can be addressed, but not with the tag.
 * As for your claim that "this article is it is not seeking to simply represent views from reliable sources, but make *categorical assertions about groups of people and their viewpoints based on their political/ideological opponents*", can you be more specific about what in this article you are taking issue with? If there is something in this article that is not a representation of a view from a reliable source, I would like to know so I can remove it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to see your detailed rationale to support your opinion that this article does not follow WP:NPOV, together with the sources that you can provide to support it. Please note that your own personal opinions, original research or simply WP:DONTLIKEIT are not valid arguments in this context. -- The Anome (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * From the archives of this talk page, I see that this is the umpteenth time that an editor brings up a discussion about NPOV. And I think we are not doing a good job in respecting these requests. The one argument I really see coming back over and over again, is the 'provide reliable sources' argument. Yes, it is complying with wiki policy and guidelines to ask other editors to provide sources to back up their statements, but what I also see a lot on these sociological/ideological talk pages, is a lack of interest in someone's views. When NPOV is disputed, the editor is smacked down with policy-related arguments quite literally. The policy should serve the article, not the other way around. If so many editors are concerned for bias, and the fact that most sociological/ideological scholars are leaning to left-wing ideology (a simple Google search should suffice), maybe we should take these editors a bit more seriously, and even help them supporting their claims.
 * One simple way of doing this, is to suggest edits that might be acceptable for you, and 'move' the article a bit to their side. Or trying to find sources that support their claims. Or maybe not smacking the "it's policy!"-argument too quickly. Or maybe acknowledge that certain information does not have to be represented in the way it's represented now.
 * I'm not going to involve myself in this discussion, but this simply was something that I wanted to say to encourage all sides to be a bit more human. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would welcome you to join this discussion, Pyrite Pro, since it is not too dissimilar from the one we are having above. But I don't think it's jumping too quickly to "it's policy!" to ask someone to explain why the article violates WP:NPOV when they wish to see a POV tag added, particularly when they seem to be claiming that the weight of sources is being improperly evaluated without providing any sources of their own.As for respecting this request, I think I have been extremely respectful of someone who opened their discussion in an extremely ABF way by calling me a "notorious feminist agitator". GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works, so your invitation to abandon our policies "for the sake of the article" seems... short-sighted. This article gets a lot of attention from "well meaning" ideological warriors. We're not going to waste time on them.  Bring sources or stop wasting our time.  And for those who ascribe to this particular ideology, well: sorry that you're called misogynistic; have you tried perhaps not being misogynistic?  Then that won't happen.--Jorm (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion in this particular section is getting a bit out of hand, bordering to rudeness, so I refuse to participate. By the way, don't take my comment too personally, as it is meant for all editors here (including the editors that participated in archived discussions). Reading your responses, I sense that I've spent too little attention to the responsibilities of the editors claiming bias. Indeed, they have to present some concrete evidence, especially when requesting a POV tag. And their request should indeed be friendly and kindly formulated. My main point in that is that we can help them a lot, and that editors are not necessarily wrong if they are not able to provide evidence. I do not encourage editors to abandon policy, but I do encourage editors to not weaponize them to out-argue others. If lots of editors address similar issues regarding NPOV, another approach might be more helpful. I know that this is not the culture/habit on Wiki, as I see this phenomenon on lots of similar pages, but I hope that I, as a fairly new user with academic background, can be bold in proposing a different (but policy-complying) approach to solve these kind of NPOV disputes. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if you have suggestions for them that you think others here haven't provided, I'd encourage you to give them, either here or to the editor on their talk page if you're more comfortable. You are right that editors who can't provide sources are not automatically wrong, however in this case, without new sources this editor will not achieve the change they are asking for (because it is not supported by the existing sources, and we don't change articles to contradict sourcing as they are suggesting). I don't think anyone has "weaponized" policy here—asking for sourcing is about as standard as it gets in Wikipedia discussions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already given my solution: consider moving certain claims. Maybe even add a "critics" section. These claims don't have to be removed, as they are well-referenced, but policy does not really dictate HOW certain claims should be represented within an article. And that's my humble opinion about discussions on this talk page: arguments are hitting concrete here, because it's all about sources, not about source representation. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That a handful of vocal MGTOW members/supporters/defenders dispute what independent reliable sources say does not mean we should "(respect) these requests...take these editors a bit more seriously...and 'move' the article a bit to their side." We currently have a lot of sources that say Battlefield Earth is a horrible film. If a group forms on reddit that argues it unseats Citizen Kane and Travolta's performance puts anything Meryl Streep has done to shame, Wikipedia should still say "Battlefield Earth was a critical and commercial failure, frequently described as one of the worst films of all time." That members of a group disagree with the overall assessment of their group or individuals disagree with what is widely reported about them is WP:MANDY. Most people do not want to be characterized as hateful. It's true of numerous other groups and individuals. It's true of MGTOW. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is assuming bad faith now? ;-) Let me illustrate my point. My point of view on the movement is simple: I think the movement might have some valid points, but I also think "abandoning" women altogether is not really constructive, sucks the joy out of life and is overly generalizing women. So I'm not exactly in favor of the ideas of this movement, okay? But I do see a clear bias against the movement in this article. See how I can agree with your POV on this movement, but also find the article to be painfully biased? That might just be the case with other editors. Please don't be too quick in condemning these editors, and try to take into account concerns of ALL editors. It is possible to acknowledge concerns of both side and find compromises, instead of slamming doors shut. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing SummerPhDv2.0 said above assumes bad faith about any other editor, or even references other editors in any way. They are talking exclusively about sources and content, which is what you should be doing (rather than, say, talking about your view of the movement, or your attitude towards women). Keep it focussed on the article, please. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this thread was not about sources and contents. It was about ignoring concerns of editors and fiercely sticking to a certain POV. I'm just arguing that discussion about sources and contents seems to be impossible, even if a wide variety of editors expresses concerns about NPOV. I think that this stubbornness has roots in not acknowledging concerns of other editors. I think that's a fair point to argue, and I think this is the place to discuss that if it concerns the contents of the article.  Pyrite Pro  (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this thread isn't about sources and content, it's in the wrong place. If your concern is about the regular editors of this page failing to maintain a neutral point of view, WP:NPOVN is available. If you think their overall conduct requires review, there's WP:ANI. I repeat: SummerPhDv2.0 made no comment about any other editor in their post, and your suggestion that they are assuming bad faith is inappropriate. Please keep your personal observations about the subject itself, and your attitude towards women, to yourself. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we are not talking about the same thing. I'm questioning whether some regular editors are taking concerns about the content seriously. You might think it's a meta-discussion, I don't think so. It affects discussions on this talk page greatly, and I think someone should say something about that. And that's me. I hope that these editors might reflect on their train of thought, which again might lead to different results on this discussion, which might lead to content changes. So eventually, this thread is all about the contents. Furthermore, I find the remarks of SummerPhDv2.0 about some of the editors to be bordering on assuming bad faith, and tried to illustrate that not every editor that disagrees with them is a MGTOW-member that wants to exclude facts from wiki. In illustrating that point, I certainly did not reveal any attitude towards women, but did reveal a nuanced opinion about the movement itself to provide anecdotal evidence. If you have interpreted my comments otherwise, I'm sorry for not being clear enough, and hope that this clears some things up. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Provided you cut the accusations of bad faith on an article talk page, and keep the discussion focussed on the content of the article, we're good. Other subject matter should be discussed elsewhere. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  14:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me be very clear: This article should not be edited to address the concerns of editors. This article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about MGTOW. They regularly and repeatedly describe the group as anti-feminist and misogynist, advocating for men to separate themselves from women and society and as overlapping the alt-right and white supremacist movements. As a result, that is what Wikipedia says. We shouldn't tone that down or take into consideration anyone's displeasure over that content.
 * Arguments that we should address other editors "concerns" and "'move' the article a bit to their side" are completely at odds with Wikipedia's core policies. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If my objection to slanting the article to be more sympathetic towards MGTOW in violation of basically all of the sourcing is "stubbornness", then I'm guilty as charged. Both you and Smulthaug below seem to think that Wikipedia editors ought to be "compromising" (that is, acquiescing to your suggested changes) just to be nice, when you have yet to produce any solid sourcing that supports removal (or in Smulthaug's case, in-text attribution) of the "misogynist" term from the lead. Wikipedia articles must be written to proportionately reflect the significant points of view that are represented in reliable sourcing, and this is not a policy we will compromise on just because you are persistent in asking.
 * You also seem to believe that repeated attempts by pro-MGTOW POV-pushers to slant the article favorably towards MGTOW is somehow representative of an NPOV issue. Even if multiple people show up to say WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it doesn't make it a valid argument. None of those commenters have actually been able to explain how the article violates NPOV, either by misrepresenting the sources currently in use, using poor-quality sources, or omitting other high-quality sources with a different perspective. God knows I've tried to get them to explain this, but it's mostly been a refrain of "I just want it to not say MGTOW is misogynist even though multiple experienced editors here have agreed the sources firmly support the descriptor".
 * Your argument that policy does not really dictate HOW certain claims should be represented within an article and so the "misogynist" descriptor should be buried somewhere else in the article shows your ignorance of WP:NPOV, which I have repeatedly explained clearly requires us to represent with due weight the various viewpoints, and MOS:LEAD, which requires us to summarize an article's most important contents in the lead. To use the example I used in the below section when talking to Smulthaug, we do not bury the fact that Modern flat Earth societies are proponents of pseudooscience deeply in the article; we come right out and say it in the first sentence because that is one of the most noteworthy things about them. The same goes for MGTOW and its misogyny/antifeminism. Trying to wikilawyer the prominent, mainstream view of the movement into a "criticism" section is frankly not going to happen.
 * If you are truly convinced that the editors here, who have patiently tried to explain policy to you and others, are all involved in some concerted anti-MGTOW scheme or are improperly owning the page, feel free to bring it to ANI for outside input. In fact, at this point I would suggest you do, because I am absolutely not going to continue arguing in circles with you when you refuse to produce sources or, apparently, read the NPOV policy. Fair warning, I think you'll find people there will be similarly unimpressed at your attempts to skew the article contrary to sourcing.
 * I would say that you could bring it to NPOVN if you're truly convinced that a group of people is maintaining an article that goes against WP:NPOV, but there is already a thread open there (which you are of course welcome to add to, if you so please). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Misogyny
There has been extensive edit warring in the last few days to remove the long-standing label “misogynist” that has been applied to this group in this article. It seems likely that there is some discussion going on off wiki. As far as I can see, the designation is very well sourced, and | this discussion in June 2019 shows strong consensus for the inclusion of the term (ie multiple editors discussing the topic, and only deciding whether the word “classified/considered“/etc should be used.) The onus is on those who wish to remove this label to get consensus for its removal. Please do so here. --Slp1 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's just because when the temporary full-protection on this page expired, the previous indefinite semi-protection was not immediately re-applied. This is a contentious page that was indefinitely semi-protected for good reason, and I think now that that's been restored it will be less of an issue. I'm certainly willing to discuss with any of those editors if they legitimately think the sourcing doesn't support the "misogynist" descriptor, but I suspect much of it was just vandalism. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . Ah, I didn't notice about the loss of indefinite semi.  It will help that this has been restored. In situations like this, I am a strong believer in the benefit of laying out the current consensus, and inviting discussion. I find it helps administrators identify disruptive editing/editors more easily.   I too can't imagine how anybody would be able to use convincing policy-based arguments to remove the term, but I guess we will see what happens! --Slp1 (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, that's always a good idea. I've got the page on my watchlist in case anyone takes you up on the invite. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to our attention, also on the NPOV noticeboard. I do agree that the provided sources support the misogynist character of MGTOW, but let me give some reasons for removing/moving the term 'misogynist':
 * Note that the sources that explicitly call the movement misogynistic are not that well received within the scientific community, with most of them having (almost) no citations. The credibility of the sources is therefore questionable.
 * The article, and mainly the lead section, does not provide a lot of references to sources that support the movement, while the movement in itself is not that bad. I suspect undue weight in sources.
 * Please note that the provided sources are used for a lot of articles on feminism and gender ideology, which is an attack on source diversity on Wikipedia. In this way, the whole gender/feminism ideology across tens of articles is mostly based on a few sources.
 * These reasons combined give me some very serious doubts about whether to use such a judgmental word in the first sentence of the lead section. I think it would be more fitting to add it to the 'Reaction' section. In that way, it can also be explained that the context of these sources is research to online branches of the movement on some pretty dark forums like 4chan.
 * Summary: Support of moving/removing 'misogynist' Pyrite Pro  (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Pyrite Pro. Thanks for responding here and giving your thoughts.  I will respond to them.
 * Wikipedia editors write articles using the highest quality scholarly sources. See WP:RS, WP:PSTS etc. The sources used in this article are scholarly books, articles in peer reviewed journals, high quality mainstream newspapers.   These are precisely the sort of sources that should be used in an article like this. There is no hierarchy of scholarship, and even if you could demonstrate that "the scientific community" does not hold these academic sources in high regard (which I sincerely doubt), it is irrelevant since this is not a scientific topic.
 * Wikipedia editors write articles that summarize the highest quality literature available.  The fact that the article does not "support the movement" is a reflection of those sources. See WP:WEIGHT Source diversity is important, but only if multiple sources with different opinions exist. If the movement is indeed "not that bad" as you say,  then please provide some scholarly, high quality sources that make this point so that we can include these perspectives.
 * It seems that you are quite a new editor.  Welcome!!  You will find it very helpful to read WP's policy on Neutral Point of View. You can find it here WP:NPOV. It will answer a lot of your questions and comments. Slp1 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your (quick!) response. Happy to see your commitment. Let me work through your comments:
 * I do believe that editors try to use high quality sources. I do also believe that the quality of a source can be measured by reputation of journal, reputation of author and number of citations in other journals. In this way, a hierarchy does exist, and determines how prominent some statements should be represented on wiki articles. For example, if the statement that the movement is misogynistic is not very prominently stated in the sources, and the sources themselves are not cited so much, I think that the statement itself does not deserve a prominent place on the wiki article. By the way, it might be a bad example, because it does have a fairly prominent place in some of the references, but you get my point.
 * This might not be a scientific topic, but if we are going to value sources from scholars more than sources within the movement itself, the quality of the article and its sources should be measured against academic standards.
 * Thanks for your suggestion to find some sources, that might indeed help in the discussion. Right now, I'm not going in too deep and waiting for other users to respond as well, but a first Google Scholar search on the movement gives me exactly the same reference as provided in this article (reference 6, Lin 2017). This article is relatively high-quality and well-received, and its conclusion brings a lot of nuance to the misogynistic nature of the movement. Again, I do think that it would be right to call the movement misogynistic, but I can recognize the feelings of other editors that this judgmental word is used as a primary label, while a lot of nuance is required.
 * Again, thank you for taking your time to respond and trying to settle the NPOV discussion. I appreciate it. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Replying in order for clarity's sake:
 * If you are going to claim that sources are not well received in the scientific community, please be specific about which one(s) you are referring to and why this is the case. Otherwise we are left to guess which source(s) you are referring to.
 * The lack of sources that take a positive view towards MGTOW is due to a lack of those sources existing, not due to them being intentionally omitted. If you know of similarly reliable sources to the ones used in this article, please provide them so we can incorporate them. Note that YouTube videos by random MGTOW members, self-published books, and other sources like those that do not meet WP:RS will not do–those are the kinds of sources that have been suggested recently by commenters on this page. If you don't know of such reliable sources, I don't see how you can accuse other editors of unduly representing the weight of the sourcing.
 * Some of the sources used here are certainly used in other manosphere articles, because I have helped to write several others (manosphere and incel, mainly) and so am quite familiar with (and have access to) these sources. I don't even know what an "attack on source diversity" is, but reusing high-quality sources that are relevant to multiple articles is not in any way frowned upon. Again, if you think that high quality sources are being left out of this article, I assure you it is not for lack of looking. If you know of some that I don't, I again encourage you to provide them here.
 * As for your comment that it can also be explained that the context of these sources is research to online branches of the movement on some pretty dark forums like 4chan, it actually can't. I don't believe any of the sources used in this article refer to a MGTOW community on 4chan. The most commonly mentioned MGTOW communities among the source articles are those on Reddit and MGTOW.com, both of which I believe are fairly mainstream. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your well-structured response! Let me respond in the same manner:
 * I will state the number of citations, based on Google Scholar (30 July 2020), for all sources supporting the 'misogynist' statement. Wright, Scott; Trott, Verity; Jones, Callum (May 11, 2020): 1 citation, clear support for 'misogynist'; Jones, Callum; Trott, Verity; Wright, Scott (November 8, 2019): 8 citations, clear support for 'misogynist'; Nagle, Angela (2017). Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right: 497 citations, not mentioning 'misogynist' or similar; Zuckerberg, Donna (2018): 42 citations, cannot verify occurrence of 'misogynist' or similar; Lin, Jie Liang (2017): 15 citations, only nuanced support for 'misogynist'.
 * As mentioned in my response to Slp1 (above), I won't go too deep until some other users respond as well. However, the source of Lin, Jie Liang (2017) does provide a lot of nuance in the claim of the movement being misogynistic, while that nuance is not reflected in the lead section and this particular sentence.
 * Do I sense that you're offended? I'm sorry if you are, it was certainly not my intention. I'm grateful for your contributions to the project! I am not interested in offending other users, and try to only talk about how the representation of information within articles might be influenced by a lack of diversity of sources. Of course, sources can be used over and over again in different articles, especially if the topics are closely related, but I do think that some caution is required. For a lot of topics on wiki, I find that sources are used/recycled that are not specifically written for those topics, and that bothers me. They can be used, surely, but I prefer sources specifically focused on the topic itself. Also, editors might be encouraged to write several articles on related topics based only on a limited set of sources, which is a huge pitfall. Not sure if that's the case here, but I'm just stating my concerns.
 * Nagle, Angela (2017) mentions 4chan, so that's why I mentioned it. From some knowledge of these platforms, I know that 4chan is kind of a special place, and contains some really dark stuff. I am kind of concerned that the ideas of this 'branch' of the movement are too well represented by calling the whole movement misogynist. That's also my main point: before labeling a whole movement of human beings as misogynistic, we have to think twice and maybe thrice. As pointed out earlier, a well-respected source (Lin, Jie Liang (2017)) brings a lot of nuance.
 * Again, thank you for your comment. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't say I'm surprised that the source published only two months ago only has one citation. However, because the Wright et al source is published in Information, Communication & Society, a well-respected journal, I have no concerns about its general reliability. As for using the number of citations to determine weight, while it can be a useful piece of information to consider, it is also fairly heavily affected by the age of the source, particularly in topic areas such as this one where there aren't tons of sources to pick from.I am a little wary of putting as much weight on the Lin source as you seem to be suggesting—you will see in the article I cited it relatively infrequently compared to the other scholarly sources. The Trott/Wright/Jones sources are published in quite well-known journals, and the author list includes a professor, lecturer, and PhD student all with relevant areas of research . The Lin source has a sole author, who is described in the contributor notes at the end of the book as having graduated with a MA in Visual and Media Anthropology the previous year. The book itself seems to have drawn a number of contributors from the master's program at their university, Freie Universität Berlin, if you look at the other biographies. While I do think it's a usable source (solid publisher, decent editors) I don't think it should be weighted heavily.I'm still sort of trying to figure out what you're looking for here—it now seems you don't necessarily want "misogynist" removed, just caveated somewhat? Anyway, you are correct that not all of the sources in that chunk support the specific "misogynist" claim—some are being used for the other descriptors (antifeminist, separatist, etc.) I will have to look through the additional sources in this article—I can't remember if there are others that use the descriptor—I do remember when I was writing the lead trying to not overload the article with inline citations, and so it may be that others support the claim but are not cited inline. I can look, but first it might be helpful if you could answer my next question:
 * Can you explain what nuance from the Lin source you are hoping to see reflected in this article? It's particularly helpful if you'd suggest the specific wording and where you'd see it going, but the gist of it would be a good starting point too.
 * I can't speak to whether you sense that I'm offended, but if you're asking if I am offended, I am not. I'm not sure what I would even have to be offended about here. That said, I have been told before that my online writing style can come across as a little brusque, so if that's what you are hearing I apologize for giving that impression. You might also just be hearing my confusion—I still don't understand how you can claim that there is undue weight in the sources based on a lack of sources that support the movement, when you don't seem to have any sources that support the movement to suggest.
 * Nagle's book does mention 4chan, but not really in the context of MGTOW. That book covers a very wide variety of topics, and the references to 4chan are mostly in the context of the alt-right, Anonymous, and Gamergate. While it wouldn't surprise me if there are men in the MGTOW movement who are also active on 4chan, the same could be said of just about any movement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you again for your comprehensive answer! It's holiday season in The Netherlands, so I'm a bit behind on Wiki-related issues. I see that there's not too much attention for this discussion, which, in all fairness, will prevent me from getting consensus. So let me try another approach in supporting my statement, to better emphasize my best interest for the project. Let's not focus too much on technical details of credibility, but more on the way of representing information. You know, on Wiki we can state everything, as long as backed up by reliable sources. But the way we represent the information (e.g. in the lead, in a separate section, woven into a series of statements, etc) is mostly in our hands. My whole view on labeling the movement as misogynist is that it's certainly allowed, as reliable sources were provided, but that due to the three reasons mentioned at the root of this discussion, I've come to seriously doubt whether it is fair to place this label in the first sentence of the lead section. Also, I am very cautious in placing such bold labels in such prominent sections, as it might not be very honoring to the individual persons in the MGTOW movement.


 * However, I still do respect the provided sources, especially the older and more cited Lin, Jie Liang (2017) source provided. Most of them do support the labeling of the movement as misogynist, but Jie Liang Lin seems to bring nuance in this discussion. From page 94, conclusion, I quote: "While the popular press is quick to find answers in generalized notions of “misogyny” with regard to tragedies and controversies, such as Isla Vista and #gamergate, male identity formations on the internet warrant a closer inspection. With MGTOW, MRM and PUA, the numbers are indeed evident of latent and unresolved male identity issues, which the internet has enabled into a “ghost” consciousness of anonymous men in the digital milieu." I would encourage all editors following this page to read the conclusion and mainly the parts before and after this quote. This is exactly the nuance that might settle the NPOV disputes on this page, while preserving knowledge. I would suggest to remove the label 'misogynist' from the lead section, and spend some sentences in some other section, preferably the Reaction section.


 * Hopefully, this will clarify my view, especially the nuance I'm seeking for. Looking forward to hear your thoughts on this. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries on the response time, I hope you're enjoying your holiday. I will review the portion of the Lin piece that you have quoted, however I see you have not addressed my concerns about the reliability of the Lin source (and therefore with relying on it too heavily in this article). Do you have any thoughts on that? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Quite hot weather these days, hardly standing it! I quickly looked at the issue. I don't think we should give the Lin source too little credit. Indeed, the author is not that highly placed in the 'academic order', but from a quick scan, I see that this particular source is cited by some prominent authors and in some prominent articles, including a Trott/Wright/Jones article used on this page. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hot here too, and probably only going to get worse over the next month, but then we'll hopefully get some relief.I just took a look at the portion of the Lin article that you're highlighting, and I disagree that the author is contradicting the "misogyny" claim; it seems to me that they are agreeing that MGTOW, MRAs, and PUAs are misogynist, whereas other "male identity formations on the internet" may not be. It's a little odd, because then they immediately jump in to discussion of "But which points are salient for 'antifeminists' to expand on contemporary gender discourse, if any?" without going too much further into the starting point.As for weighting the Lin source, I hope some others will weigh in here. It seems we disagree, and to summarize: I feel that a person with an MA in Visual and Media Anthropology but no (known) other credentials ought not to be weighted heavily amidst professors and other researchers with expertise in the fields of political participation online, digitial masculinities, etc., whereas you feel the 15 citations of their chapter are sufficient to weight it similarly to the other scholarly sources here. Does that seem accurate?That said, the weighting issue may become a moot point if you agree with how I've interpreted Lin's comments, which in my opinion support the "misogynist" descriptor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would we extract "nuance" from one source and use that to override the statements of multiple sources? To be "fair" to MGTOW? No. Wikipedia is not here to be "fair" to anyone or anything. If independent reliable sources said members of a group have "dorky soup bowl haircuts", Wikipedia would report that, then begin arguing whether we should link to Soup Bowl and Haircut or just Bowl cut.
 * I'm not overly focused on the "technical details of credibility", I'm looking at the technical details of verifiability. Multiple independent reliable sources describe the movement -- which separates from women because they believe feminism (aiming for equality of the sexes) is destroying society -- somehow has contempt for women. Is it "very honoring" to individuals of a voluntary group to label the group as what it is? If you don't want people to think you're a gardener, joining a gardening club is a curious choice.
 * Most of the reliable sources "support the labeling of the movement as misogynist". You feel one source "seems to bring nuance". So find a consensus summary of that "nuance" and include it in the body; it does not affect the lead summary. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your responses. I've been away from Wiki for a while, because I've been frustrated about how these kind of discussions develop themselves. I will be brutally honest with you in the following points, hoping that it might help you reflect on this matter:
 * I will not spend too much time discussing this matter anymore. There barely is interest from other editors to discuss, and from the previous discussions I see a selected group of editors that show WP:OWN-like behaviour. And you know that I'm not the first editor on this talk page to recognize that behaviour. I won't stand a chance in editing this page, and I know it.
 * In literally all discussions on this talk page (and similar ones), editors are fiercely defending the status quo by using wiki policy. Concerns of other editors are wiped away as if it's nothing. Policies are weaponized to favor leftist/feminist ideology over alternative ideas. Concerns about left-wing bias in academic publications are not taken seriously, while this bias is proven over and over again. Concerns about the left-wing POV of editors are not taken seriously, while this biased is also proven. What editors really should know, it that one of the fundamental pillars of wiki is the WP:5P5 pillar: Wikipedia has no firm rules. It really is allowed to have a civil discussion about how to apply policy to pages. And before slamming any doors shut, you can just ask yourself: hey, is the proposed idea really against policy? Or am I just really a fan of my own work and do I not tolerate any changes to my work? It is so discouraging to have these discussions with some editors, because they are so fiercely defending their points and are not able to acknowledge that others might have a different perspective. It is so maddening that editors are so focused on their own representation of facts and ideologies, while the world is so much larger than those small ideas.
 * About the matter itself: I've been defending moving the word 'misogynist' within/from the lead section of this page. Yes, some leftist scholars are boldly labeling the movement as such. Yes, there are not a lot of publications that give some nuance to this (there is one, but even that one is rejected as such). But there is literally no reason to give this label such a prominent place within the lead section. And that's my point: policy might indicate that it's fair to include this label, but it certainly does not dictate that is has to have such a prominent place. And no one of you has seriously defended the prominent place of this label, only the inclusion of this label within the article. As all sources that might say something else about the movement are clearly abandoned/rejected, I do find it unfair to the movement and its members to stigmatize them in such a way. Really, the solution is so amazingly simple: MOVE the mentioning of this label. It does NOT have to be removed! It does not violate policy!
 * Bye. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have responded to most of these points below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia strongly favors the work of the scholarly community, including peer-reviewed sources and well-regarded academic presses. That you have a blanket concern that there is "left-wing bias in academic publications" which you feel has been "proven over and over again" is not something that can be seriously addressed in one article, contrary to the obvious project-wide consensus to the contrary.
 * Individual articles will strongly tilt toward following the core policies of the project, as they should. Metapedia's article on Adolf Hitler summarizes who he was without mention of World War II, Nazis or the Holocaust, all in keeping with their "mission". Wikipedia, instead, summarizes what reliable sources say about him: leader of the Nazi Party, dictatorship, he initiated World War II, closely involved in military operations throughout the war and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust. All of that is in keeping with Wikipedia's bias toward what independent reliable sources say. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions regarding information integrity / value bias.
I've never used WikiPedia to make edits before, what is the correct process in order to dispute information ethically with proper etiquette? ( In short form if possible ) - I have issues with some peer reviewed sources listed that I'd like to challenge. There seems to be an inconsistent theme going on regarding social values and objectivity. As I understand Wikipedia in general declares itself as an unreliable source, so it's important to know who holds the power over what is finally published and who arbitrated the decisions, as everything we consume builds culture. Moreover what are the options available for dissenters to mount continued pressure when new evidence is found, ultimately to discourage those with a foothold are not able to bully and suppress dissent, the dissent should also be documented for the record. Those groups who hold a contrary opinion should also be included, stated in the article for full transparency on the position they hold and ultimately declare the issue as contested.

( Off topic ) Is there a place you could direct me towards ( admins? ) in order to voice suggestions about the WikiPedia UX / UI experience in general as I believe it acts as a participation deterrent and would like to give some feedback for the platform to be more accessible to all types of people rather than it's current esoteric format. There is no way your average person, knowledgeable or not, on a certain topic would go to the lengths required without being fatigued in order to participate, this is dangerous for everyone since fundamentalists with self interest / trolls or administrative abuse of power can take hold without the wider international community being involved to monitor and defend the rights of others. Any information welcome!

The Rock Dove

The Rock Dove (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Welcome! I'll try to answer your questions as best I can:
 * what is the correct process in order to dispute information ethically with proper etiquette? ( In short form if possible ) - I have issues with some peer reviewed sources listed that I'd like to challenge. Typically the first step would be to bring up your concerns on the talk page of the article, if your concern is with a specific source. However, if the source is one that has already been discussed by the community at length (for example the sources listed at WP:RSP), you would need a broader discussion, most likely at the reliable sources noticeboard, to alter past consensus. The noticeboard is also a good place to go for outside input on whether or not a source is reliable, if you prefer.
 * As I understand Wikipedia in general declares itself as an unreliable source, so it's important to know who holds the power over what is finally published and who arbitrated the decisions, as everything we consume builds culture. Correct, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The decision over what is finally published is up to consensus among the editing community. When editors have trouble coming to a consensus, there are various forms of dispute resolution, again moderated by members of the community, which can help come to a decision.
 * Moreover what are the options available for dissenters to mount continued pressure when new evidence is found, ultimately to discourage those with a foothold are not able to bully and suppress dissent, the dissent should also be documented for the record. Can you explain what you mean here? When new reliable sources are available, the first step would be to bring them to the attention of other editors of the page. There should be no need to "mount continued pressure" in order for proper sources to be introduced. I'm also not sure what you mean by "the dissent should be documented for the record"—can you explain?
 * Those groups who hold a contrary opinion should also be included, stated in the article for full transparency on the position they hold and ultimately declare the issue as contested. I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding what you're saying—do you mean that when reliable sources disagree on a subject, the disagreement should be mentioned in the article? If so, that is an integral part of how Wikipedia articles are written. Per our core policy on neutral point of view, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. However if you are saying any viewpoint on a subject should be represented in the article about that subject, including fringe viewpoints not supported by reliable sourcing, that is contrary to Wikipedia policy which requires reliable sourcing.
 * Is there a place you could direct me towards ( admins? ) in order to voice suggestions about the WikiPedia UX / UI experience in general as I believe it acts as a participation deterrent and would like to give some feedback for the platform to be more accessible to all types of people rather than it's current esoteric format. Wikipedia administrators are primarily responsible for helping to maintain the content of Wikipedia, and have little to no control over how the site itself is built and what it looks like. Much of Wikipedia's look is dictated by MediaWiki, the underlying software that is used by many wikis in addition to Wikipedia. You can give input on the software itself at MediaWiki.org. This page in particular gives some more info on the Wikimedia Foundation's design team, and some links with info on how to get involved.
 * I hope this more or less answered your questions. I'll also leave a welcome template on your talk page with some general information about getting started with contributing to Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020
I would like you to make changes in the opening paragraph of the article. It deliberately paints men in wrong picture and tarnishes reputation of men in society. 106.78.76.69 (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ No specific changes requested. Please read through the discussions above; if you have any suggestions that haven't been discussed previously, please suggest specific changes. Girth Summit  (blether)  05:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Restriction to add other manosphere groups
I have added other manosphere groups in my edit but it was reverted in a short time in a quick manner. It had no hateful speech, no controversial content or anything else which could even trigger any overly sensitive person but still it was reverted. Instead on my talk page some "Discretionary Sanctions Notification - Gamergate and gender as well as American Politics" posters were pasted. This seem some to me an attempt of hate, threat and violence to me. Is Wikipedia the property of some leftist's propaganda? Could someone tell me why the content could not be added or why would it trigger anybody? The content I added is as below

Men's rights movement
Those who are in favor of governmental change want to end the interfernece of government in civil life including the leftists control over family courts, government support for single mothers through tax payers hard earned money and other leftist's programs.

Pickup artistry
While PUAs advocate for casual short term romantic relationships without getting involved in legal aspects like marriages whereas MGTOWs advocate for only maintaining platonic relationships with women or to eschew relationships with women altogether.

Herbivore men
Herbivore men is a term used in Japan to describe men who have no interest in getting married or finding a girlfriend. . The term also has close ties in meaning to "ohitorisama" which roughly translates to the act of living alone and performing tasks independently of other people. Many in MGTOW community consider them to be manifestation of philosophy of MGTOW movement.

Incels
Incels, a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates", are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one. MGTOW community doesn't consider them to be part of their community since MGTOW advocate apathy while the incel community is largely misognist and self-loathing.

Celibates (VCELs)
In contrast to incels, celibates are voluntarily being unmarried and sexually abstinent, for self independence and self-ownership and to achieve higher goals of life including spiritual ones by retaining his own sovereignty above all else. They consider sex and marriage to be of inferior purpose akin to animal life and are instead motivated to achieve higher goals without being distarcted and entalgled in such relationships.


 * Perhaps you're confusing WP:TWINKLE with "trigger"? No one was upset by your edit. It was just done incorrectly and poorly.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I am not confusing anything here. Even if something was not done perfectly in your subjective opinion, you could have improved it. Instead you abused your power of admin, reverted my changes and pasted the poster on my talk page to bully and intidimate me. Since, you are an admin so I assume that you know that wikipedia doesn't allow bullying and intidimation of editors by admins. You could have simply acknowledged your mistake and reverted your actions but you are hell bent on abusing your powers. Now, it is your call that either you make corrections or I have to call other admins and get their opinion on your actions. Since everything is in record so everything would be apparent to everyone. They would be able to judge better whether your actions were motivated by prejudiced emotional hate to indimate and bully or were they reasonable. Sohcb8 (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any admin tools or actions being involved here. You added unsourced material and an off-topic source. Had I seen it first, I would have reverted it, added a consensus notice to your talk page and given you the discretionary sanctions notices.
 * As those DS notices say, the notices themselves do not mean you necessarily did anything wrong, only that you have edited a page where Wikipedia's normal policies are tightened and editors can be blocked much more rapidly to limit the types of disputes that have happened on articles of this type in the past.
 * Feel free to discuss whatever your specific concerns may be at the venue of your choice (a few are outlined at WP:DISPUTE, but I think you may have misunderstood the situation. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 06:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020
Remove the statement "Like other manosphere communities, the MGTOW community overlaps with the alt-right and white supremacist movements, and it has been implicated in online harassment of women."

MGTOW has nothing to do with race. It is simply a movement of protest for guys to get equal treatment under the law and the family court system... It literally has nothing to do with race. SystemsHacker (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ The assertion in the article is cited to a reliable source. Your objection to it seems to be based on your own analysis, since you cite no source. We cannot change the content on that basis. Girth Summit  (blether)  23:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * He does make a point. MGTOW has nothing to do with race. It's about men who are fed up with the gynocracy that they're just walking away. I also notice these "sources" are completely biased. But again, the editors that run the MGTOW page are feminists. They don't know nothing about MGTOW or the manosphere. And you can see what it's protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.19.16 (talk • contribs)
 * Feel free to present any reliable sources you have that contradict the sourcing on this page, or to raise specific concerns with the sourcing used in the page. Vague complaints like "these 'sources' are completely biased" are difficult to work with given there are twenty sources on the page you could be referring to; similarly, saying "MGTOW has nothing to do with race" when that contradicts RS on the page is not helpful without your own RS to back it up. If you're unsure if a source is reliable, WP:RSP is a good first place to check.
 * Regarding your concern about the page protection: the page is protected because of persistent unsourced changes, but that doesn't mean the article can't change. The whole edit request process that SystemsHacker already used was created expressly to allow constructive editors to continue to edit protected pages even when they are technically prevented from doing so because of other past disruption. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This page is straight propaganda.
It’s so obvious it just cracked me up. This page is literally farcical.

Anyone care to discuss whether or not we might ever be allowed by the edit Gestapo to improve it?

It seems to me that Wikipedia is done as an impartial source about anything political. They’ve just ceded too much territory. If I’m honest it doesn’t seem hopeful. I myself am more liberal than conservative but that doesn’t mean I want Wikipedia being so biased that it becomes less than useless.

Like this page is. It is comically propagandistic.

And, if anyone cares, wildly inaccurate. Destrypants (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have indefinitely topic banned from this topic area for making disruptive posts, like these above, and attacking other editors. Comparisons to the Gestapo are entirely beyond the pale.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2020
The word *misogynist* has to be removed because if anyone chooses to break away from a group or common way of life it doesn't mean that they are instantly misogynistic. There is no FACTUAL PROOF OT THE MGTOW /idea/concept being misogynistic. To call it misogynistic there have to be real facts proven by science and studies. Thus the article right now is not correct thus its misleading and has false information. The word *misogynist* has to be removed NeutralandEqual (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide a policy-based reason or multiple reliable sources that indicate your position is the correct one. For now, a plethora of reliable sources state the organization is misogynist; in fact, I'm not sure it's possible that an ideology like that of MGtOW can be anything except misogynist.--Jorm (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

On using criticism subject matter to define a groups ideology
When discussing the group's ideology, the group is rarely referenced and what references from the group appear to come from niche members or barely affiliated outliers rather than a key component. Instead what is provided is criticisms from opponents of the group, critical reception, and what appears to be a series of straw men propped up using political opponents as sources. Just as I would not go to an incel site to identify what the core ideology of feminism is, I wouldn't go to a socially progressive feminist site to identify what the core ideology of a men's rights or related movement is. These things belong in criticism and reception rather than under ideology. They are critics of what hidden agendas the movement may have and are certainly not what the majority consensus of the group is to as its own ideology. Recommended change would be the following for someone that still prefers to keep the definition of a group's core ideology based on their political opponent's view on their core ideology. "MGTOW members claim to believe that" followed by their own claims with regards to their own beliefs... This seems like a social media hit piece on them as is rather than an encyclopedia article as it is currently written. I would recommend additional changes. All criticisms are still relevant but they go into the "criticism" or "critical reception" category... Expressing exclusively criticism as its core ideology and using exclusively political opponents as sources is not a credible way to write pertaining to its core ideology and also is not contextually a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correction Coming (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Just as I would not go to an incel site to identify what the core ideology of feminism is, I wouldn't go to a socially progressive feminist site to identify what the core ideology of a men's rights or related movement is. This article is not citing "socially progressive feminist" sources; it is almost entirely sourced to peer-reviewed academic publications and books written by experts and published by reputable publishers. As for your suggestion that criticism be moved to a "criticism" section, please see WP:CRITS; it is recommended to work critical coverage into the article, grouped by topical sections. Regardless of how the article body is structured, the lead still must summarize the article content, and so cannot omit significant criticism entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely not suggesting that all criticism be moved to a criticism section and neither and I recommend that all criticism be allowed in the criticism section. I am, however, suggesting that not exclusively criticism should be allowed in the explanation of a group's core ideology. I am also suggesting that the segment in which exclusively criticism is present ought to get its own section labeled criticism so as to remain intact. As for the issue of socially progressive feminist sources... Vice calls itself socially progress and feminist. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls itself both socially progressive and feminist. Both state that they do so proudly. Which of the sources listed does not identify as socially progressive or feminist and do you not think that the sources identifying themselves as socially progressive and feminist makes them socially progressive feminists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correction Coming (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you be specific as to what you think is missing from the ideology section that needs to be added (with sourcing, please)? And no, per the page I already linked, Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section.
 * Regarding your concerns about Vice and the SPLC: we do not disallow using sources with bias (see WP:BIASEDSOURCE) so long as they are reliable and used properly, which these both are—the SPLC sources are only used with in-text attribution as is recommended for sources with a strong point of view. But as I already mentioned, these make up the minority of sourcing in this article. If there are other reliable sources that take a different point of view that you think ought to be included, feel free to suggest them.
 * As an aside, please sign your talk page posts by including four tildes at the end ( ~ ) or following the more detailed instructions I left on your talk page. In order for the ping template you have been using to work, you both need to sign your posts and start spelling my username correctly: there is no e after "War". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2021
Can someone re-write this because this is the most opinionated article I've ever seen in my life. "Misogynistic, movement that separates women blah blah blah". Who wrote this? A feminist? Mohammad (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2021
Article mis-construes part of source quote. There is nothing in the source quote that directly proves woman cannot join MGTOW. The source quote describes the variance espoused of their final aim.

Source - "MGTOW comprises of mostly straight, white, middle-class men from North America and Europe. Unlike other antifeminist groups, MGTOW espouse the abandonment of women and a Western society that has been corrupted by feminism.

Article - "Members of MGTOW communities are primarily heterosexual, white, middle-class men from North America and Europe. Unlike some other manosphere groups, MGTOW disallows women from joining'

Suggested - "Members of MGTOW communities are primarily heterosexual, white, middle-class men from North America and Europe. Unlike some other manosphere groups, MGTOW proposes that feminism has corrupted Western society, and believes that men should abandon both' 81.97.68.22 (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Its not in the source quote but from the source itself: I was interested in how MGTOW, an exclusively male, antifeminist group related.... Could be sourced with other articles as well A major rule with Men Going Their Own Way is that no women are allowed in the community—something that differs from MRAs. WikiVirusC (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021
In the very first line, it is mentioned that mgtow is misogynistic without any proof and solely based on the editors' views. This is highly unprofessional and a very poor job on the part of wikipedia to make the only useful site on the internet full of hate. I've seen this trend for some time now and there's something that needs to be done about this. And this has been pointed out by many users before also. Who gives the right to associate one group to another to the editors of this page without any legal information and based solely on the way the editor sees it fit?Fallen Psychopath (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC) — Fallen Psychopath (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As in all Wikipedia articles, the lead doesn’t contain references because it is a summary of the sourced statements in the article body. The assertion is amply sourced - did you read that far?  Acroterion   (talk)   11:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All the information in the lead sentence, including the characterization of MGTOW as misogynistic, is cited to a reliable source. See . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Definition of MGTOW
What has been done here is harmful propoganda and sensorship in order to shut down a "group" due to lack of understanding and uninformed bias. In order to get an accurate definition of what MGTOW is, you might like to talk to someone who is MGTOW as opposed to someone who appears to be an outsider with an overwhelming bias against the ideals that MGTOW portrays.

To the definition: The core of mgtow is summed up by the tag line "Of my own accord I will not serve." The driving philosophy of mgtow is about, self reliance and self improvement.

MGTOW is not a group or a cult. There is no central organisation. There is no membership or mailing list. There are no campaigns or protests. Most of all, there are no rules or agendas or requirement to hate.

MGTOW is a collection of core ideas that guide men to not become servile to society or any member of that society. To improve themselves for themselves, not for the detriment of others. To work towards their own goals for their own success, not for the failure of others. To be happy in our own space, not to make others miserable.

Men that congregate under the umbrella of MGTOW come from all walks of life and may have affiliations elsewhere. If an MRA, incel or PUA claims to follow MGTOW this does not mean MGTOW supports those other positions. This would be comparable to a Nazi claiming to also be Christian and then blaming Christianity for the Halocaust. Mrkuel (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC) — Mrkuel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Wikipedia, by design, uses the consensus of independent reliable sourcing. That means that self-sourcing is not allowed to make broad statements about a given organization, as most organizations, no matter how benign, will have a natural tendency to serve their own interest in external communications. Wikipedia uses independent assessments in reputable journalistic and academic sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My point stands. You're looking for independent reliable sources but the only articles published about MGTOW come from biased writers in a woke, over feminised media where men are often portrayed to be "the problem".
 * You are unlikely to find possitive sources about MGTOW, especially when very few people understand what it is, and many believe the biased media reports that it is a hate group.
 * The fact that many people will come to your platform for an unbiased definition is exactly why you should allow an unbiased definition to exist. By locking the page you are censoring the definition and taking part in the propaganda that is trying to end this so called "group". Mrkuel (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes where the independent reliable sources go. That is a fundamental principle. Whether you like what those sources have to say is not Wikipedia's concern.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * might I suggest to you Conservapedia? Or, for a more anti-women approach, perhaps Metapedia? versacespace  leave a message!  12:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So you're not about truth, just the loudest voice. It's all well and good when your independent sources are unbiased. This sounds more like a fundamental flaw to me. Mrkuel (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What is a woke? -Roxy . wooF 12:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * you've fundamentally misunderstood what a reliable source is. reliable sources can and will have biases, all that matters is whether or not the information being given is truthful. versacespace  leave a message!  12:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think what you meant is, all that matters is whether or not the information being given is BELIEVED TO BE truthful. I'm done here. I have always supported Wikipedia believing it to serve knowledge, not trends.
 * The locking of the page just gives protection to your supported view, which bears some resemblance to a wide overview, but ignore the fundamental truth of this particular topic and affords no challenge to this skewed viewpoint. Mrkuel (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * well, yes, information has to be "believed" to be perceived as truthful. thanks captain obvious. versacespace  leave a message!  13:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And please stop refering to MGTOW as an organisation unless you can provide information of the organisation, it's heirachy and legal status... Mrkuel (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ironically, MGTOW is never described as an "organization" in its article. You're fighting the fear that you created in your mind. versacespace  leave a message!  13:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Read above. Acroterion stated that "self-sourcing is not allowed to make broad statements about a given organization".
 * Maybe you should stop making assumptions about what's in my head and start fact checking what's in your. Mrkuel (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was speaking broadly - we'll say "group." This is a perennial issue with groups whose views are seen as distasteful by most people outside the group. Wikipedia doesn't exist to parrot what a given group wants it to say. Wikipedia is a mirror of public perception. In other words, they have a PR problem, and Wikipedia necessarily reflects that. We can't solve the PR issue for them.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just came across a statement by that seems pertinent: "Most of my informants on Reddit adamantly deny MGTOW as a movement, and fashion it more as a like-minded internet collective." She quotes one "Sergeant Dickhead" who states that MGTOW is "not a group", just individuals who "get together" to share tips with others who "share our common thought". To which one might reasonably ask, isn't that a kind of group?See also : "Structurally, MGTOW disavows the very idea that they are a group at all; they emphasise each individual man’s voice and independence." Could be worth mentioning in the article --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It starts to seem like semantic hairsplitting - while I was a bit overbroad in using "organization" (early morning, and I was thinking of the genuine organizations that have made similar complaints), a "group" is simply a set of people (or anything else) who have some sort of common feature that allows them to be described collectively. Somebody denying that they're a group is probably confusing that basic definition with an organization. Again, that would be a self-definition issue that is inadmissible here.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was just thinking of a brief mention where independent RSes have noted the self-definition issue. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think "group" and "community" are the best descriptors we have for a... well, group... of people who self-identify by the same term and spend a fair amount of time chatting with other people who self-identify by that term. I don't think this article implies that they are any sort of formal organization, and most people would describe a collection of individuals as a "group".
 * There are two spots in this article where we refer to MGTOW as a "movement", a term which is fairly well used in RS (though more in media than in academia), but they could also just be reworded to "members of the community" and "Men in the MGTOW community" or similar without losing any meaning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've swapped two uses of the word "movement" with the word "community", per GorillaWarfare's suggestion. -- The Anome (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we only published the views of self-identified MGTOWs, we'd be a public relations firm, not an encyclopedia. Ditto for Scientology, the Westboro Baptist Church, Black Hebrew Israelites, etc., etc. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just came across a statement by that seems pertinent: "Most of my informants on Reddit adamantly deny MGTOW as a movement, and fashion it more as a like-minded internet collective." She quotes one "Sergeant Dickhead" who states that MGTOW is "not a group", just individuals who "get together" to share tips with others who "share our common thought". To which one might reasonably ask, isn't that a kind of group?See also : "Structurally, MGTOW disavows the very idea that they are a group at all; they emphasise each individual man’s voice and independence." Could be worth mentioning in the article --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It starts to seem like semantic hairsplitting - while I was a bit overbroad in using "organization" (early morning, and I was thinking of the genuine organizations that have made similar complaints), a "group" is simply a set of people (or anything else) who have some sort of common feature that allows them to be described collectively. Somebody denying that they're a group is probably confusing that basic definition with an organization. Again, that would be a self-definition issue that is inadmissible here.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was just thinking of a brief mention where independent RSes have noted the self-definition issue. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think "group" and "community" are the best descriptors we have for a... well, group... of people who self-identify by the same term and spend a fair amount of time chatting with other people who self-identify by that term. I don't think this article implies that they are any sort of formal organization, and most people would describe a collection of individuals as a "group".
 * There are two spots in this article where we refer to MGTOW as a "movement", a term which is fairly well used in RS (though more in media than in academia), but they could also just be reworded to "members of the community" and "Men in the MGTOW community" or similar without losing any meaning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've swapped two uses of the word "movement" with the word "community", per GorillaWarfare's suggestion. -- The Anome (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we only published the views of self-identified MGTOWs, we'd be a public relations firm, not an encyclopedia. Ditto for Scientology, the Westboro Baptist Church, Black Hebrew Israelites, etc., etc. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2021
Do not refer to the Mgtow movement as misogynistic rather it is a movement to encourage men to improve themselves and understand that marriage isnt everything 84.65.203.102 (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources characterize them as misogynistic and that's what's reflected in the article. "MGTOW" is only ostensibly what you claim; a cursory browse of their communities reveals little more than spending their time denigrating women, primarily by way of "meme" nonsense. Go your own way already. 122.106.38.163 (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I must get this off my chest; who gets to decide what a reliable source is and why is their word now law? The three people cited in the second source are academics, well, does being an academic automatically make you incapable of spouting off half-truths or lies? I don't think so.
 * I would prefer if the article said "has been described as misogynistic" rather than outright "misogynistic". Generalizations of any kind are inherently dubious. --2001:56A:F90F:A400:2158:306D:DB3C:3581 (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Pleeb
 * The Wikipedia community has decided this, by way of our reliable sourcing policy. No one person's word is law; the policy is based on consensus among our editing community, and can always be changed. You're of course correct that anyone can lie, and being an academic (or a journalist, or reference-work author, etc.) does not prevent one from lying or telling half-truths. However, some sources are much more likely to be accurate and free of lies than others, and peer-reviewed academic works from reputable journals are among them. Certainly if a source is known for publishing shoddy work, we take that into account; similarly if a source publishes a retraction, or is contradicted by another reliable source, we update articles accordingly.
 * We don't say that "the Earth has been described as round". If there are not contradictory sources, and multiple quality sources agree on a descriptor, we generally state things plainly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reputable/reliable according to whom? Other academics? That's basically saying, "Oh, the elite/establishment has examined itself and come to the conclusion that they are truthful, therefore they must be. Case closed."
 * You're comparing apples with cars. There are mountains of objective, empirical evidence to back up the scientifically observable idea that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Hell, anyone can board an international flight and see the curve with their own two eyes. Misogyny as a concept, is a semi-subjective, sociological construct that is being used, in this context, as a generalization and a statement of fact. There's no scientific equation to determine whether or not something or somebody is misogynistic. The usage of partially subjective concepts to convey objective claims is unwise and unfair. --162.157.121.234 (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Pleeb
 * This page is not the appropriate place to debate Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy. If you think it needs to be changed, you should bring your reasoning to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. If you have sources that challenge the use of misogynistic you can bring them here; if you are unsure of their reliability, the place to go is WP:RSN. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Misogynist
I do not know much about Mgtow, but is it appropriate to address it as misogynist in the first sentence, or should it be more neutral? Again,I don’t know much about it, so I decided to ask. J cool bro  (talk) (c) 22:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutrality on Wikipedia means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It doesn't mean avoiding words like "misogynist", so long as they are reliably sourced and weighted in representation to the sourcing. MGTOW has been widely described as misogynist in reliable sources, and I've yet to see a RS disputing the descriptor, so yes, I believe it's appropriate. Full disclosure, I am the one who inserted the descriptor, but past discussions about the term on this talk page have resulted in it being retained (for example, Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 14). As always, if you (or anyone else) knows of reliable sources that contradict the descriptor, happy to take a look at them and discuss possibly rewording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't label terrorist organizations as 'terrorist'. This could only be done if *everyone* agreed (and obviously their members think they are freedom fighters etc.) What usually happens, after the first few sentences, is something like "The USA, Europe etc. all consider group X a proscribed terrorist organisations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.92.138 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would like to discuss how we describe organizations designated as terrorist groups, I'd recommend you do so on the talk pages of those articles, not here. WP:OTHERCONTENT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you could read the IP's statement and think he or she wishes to discuss how we describe organizations labeled as terrorist groups. "Other content" is not synonymous with "WP:OTHERCONTENT". The IP is (apparently) asking a valid question about using the word "misogynist", by drawing a parallel to how Wikipedia (generally) handles the word "terrorist". The answer is that "terrorist" is subjective — as noted, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. While I suppose misogyny may be subjective, MGTOW are openly and unapologetically misogynist, and the article boasts a plethora of reliable sources that substantiate this. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Al-Qaeda ... is a militant Sunni Islamist multi-national terrorist organization founded in 1988. So yes, we do label terrorist organizations "terrorist". (Not going to get into whether that term is used accurately or consistently.) See WP:SPADE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I personally believe that MGTOW is misogynist, but it seems somewhat off to put something so subjective in the first paragraph of their article. Ejkrause (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with  भारत का प्रतिहार (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)  Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply above (the one timestamped 22:53, 26 October 2020). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There's no source provided for the term misogynistic. I don't think those Twitter journals can be seen as a reliable source. Better to just add a [citation needed] after that statement. Anyone agree? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely disagree that you should drive-by tag that. I think you should read the discussions here and learn more about how article ledes work.--Jorm (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool story, Bro. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Twitter journals"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @GorillaWarfare, yes the provided link is, as it claims: a "thematic analysis of 10,280 tweets from three of the most active MGTOW users on Twitter". And then interpreted and explained in their own words. I don't think this can be used as a reliable source. MGTOW is a fairly new phenomeon so there's a lack of (good) resources. But I don't think that that should mean everyone is allowed to just fill in the blanks with their own interpretation. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Aquatic Ambiance, one thing you might want to check is WP’s policies and guidelines. See WP:V WP:NOR and WP:RS.  You are quite right that WP does not allow just anybody everyone to “ fill in the blanks with their own interpretation”.  Reliable, secondary sources-preferably academic- are privileged. They are the ones we want to do the research and make interpretations etc. You will see the sources used in this article to support the “misogynist” label are academic sources published by reputable publishers, and are precisely the sort of references that WP editors should use.Slp1 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for explaining. If you look at the page numbers of the source that are being used, it is not the authors' primary research that is being cited, but rather their overview and explanation of the background. This article is making no statements based off the Twitter research those authors were doing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Being a member of one of the main MGTOW forums,i can confirm the policies strictly prohibits any kind of targeted hate just because of their gender. JNoXK (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't work from personal statements by members of a group but from third party sources. The article has a clear not to say not to remove that material without agreement so please don't do that again -Snowded TALK 09:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If hundreds of people try to remove the "misogynist" from the article, maybe there's some truth in it, what do you think? Those Twitter journals obviously aren't a reliable source. Anyway I won't bother with things like this anymore because I've promised myself not to waste time on discussions anymore, be it political or otherwise. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There have not been hundreds of people trying to remove "misogynist" from the article. But all it takes is one person to actually make a policy-based argument as to why it ought not to be included; so far that has not happened. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To remain at least somewhat rational, we should ask why it ought to be included rather than why it ought not to. The original study cited analyzes "tweets from three of the most active MGTOW users" to proclaim that the whole movement "normalises misogynistic beliefs through online harassment". My advice is to consider the removal of said term. 20:02, 15 February 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.185.17.191 (talk)
 * Please note my comment above: If you look at the page numbers of the source that are being used, it is not the authors' primary research that is being cited, but rather their overview and explanation of the background. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

it is possible to be anti feminist, that is, rejecting the toxic aspects of the ideology, without being misogynistic. just because you disapprove of one thing, does not mean you condone its mirror image. 2600:1017:B120:1D47:1164:4679:60E6:77C8 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I've not seen anyone suggesting here that the two are the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Who’s on first? What’s on second. Destrypants (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If you refer to men minding their own business as misogynist, wouldn't lesbians me classified as misogynist as well? In view of this, men going their own way has no consensual basis that they represent a misogynist community. As this would be deemed defamatory, I have amended the introduction. Wukiki (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Welcome Wukiki. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say about topics, not what individual editors believe or deduce. There are no concerns about defamation. As such I have reverted your edits. As mentioned in the hidden text, do not delete those descriptors without getting consensus here on the talk page. Slp1 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Already removed I see. The irony of a feminist writing a defamatory and false description of a group that's only permissible to men. No point debating with these people. Wukiki (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @sp1, your sources are quoted from personal articles by profound feminist supporters. Perhaps the direct statement from MGOTW, or members of the group would be more relevant. Wukiki (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi.. I haven’t been active on this article so they are not my sources. The citations used are not “personal articles by profound feminist supporters” but by academic and other mainstream sources.
 * yes, editors could include other sources and information in this article. Do you have some sources to suggest? Please note that they need to be reliable sources … see  WP:RS. That means “reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” If you have some to suggest that would be great. Slp1 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also politely suggest having a closer look at the "Misogynist" descriptor. There is no doubt that there are Misogynists within the MGTOW "movement", but to call the entire movement itself misogynist requires, I feel, more evidence than is presented. I am not at all involved in MGTOW, but I have read of interpretations of it that are not misogynist in nature. The sources cited here are reliable, but could potentially also have a bias. I am, unfortunately, not familiar with any credible sources that would contradict the sources given. MGTOW is a very controversial "movement", if you could call it that, so sources supporting it are likely to be scant and not suitable for an encylopedia, but I still feel that the blanket term "Misogynist" is too strong. It could be possibly weakened slightly by an acknowledgement that not all MGTOW supporters would call themselves misogynists? 2001:BB6:289B:4258:28AA:9CA5:8181:8147 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you do find those sources, feel free to present them here for discussion. But until then, we will go with what the sources do say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Most misogynists don't call themselves misogynist. Just like most racists don't call themselves racist. Why should we care? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We should care possibly because wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such strives to present a balance world view. If a significant enough number of people within the MGTOW community do not regard themselves as misogynist, calling the entire "movement" misogynist seems inaccurate. JackStonePGD (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia articles are based on published, independent sources, not the self-serving claims of randos on the Internet. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're quite right, WP:FALSEBALANCEis certainly a fair point. However, the "self-serving randos" are in fact the community that the article is about. I wouldn't expect to see equal time given to moon-landing deniers in an article about NASA or the Apollo Program, but I might expect to see it in an article specifically written about moon-landing conspiracy theories. Again, not defending MGTOW, but I feel that writing an article about a group without any references from that actual group seems unencyclopedic in my opinion. Maybe that's how wikipedia works, I acknowledge my lack of knowledge, and I have no intention of stepping on anyone's toes here.2001:BB6:289B:4258:DC12:83D5:A81D:3EF6 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:SOURCES: "Base articles on reliable,, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Considering that MGTOW themselves deny they are a group at all (see below), whom from the group would we even cite? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:SOURCES: "Base articles on reliable,, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Considering that MGTOW themselves deny they are a group at all (see below), whom from the group would we even cite? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This whole article seems very biased l. It cant be edited too as it is protected. The MGTOW movement doesnt mean hating on women, do your research well. PSAFDTH (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC) There is no source on why MGTOW is misogynist... This whole article is biased and has definitely been written by a ... You say reliable sources say it is that way yet dont mention the source. PSAFDTH (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are cited in the footnotes. If you have comparable sources that say otherwise, feel free to present them. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021
The main thing that movement may be wrongly written as there are men who show theirselves as MGTOW and they respect women as much as they can' there's a difference between being  misogynistic and being MGTOW' so kindly change that perspective, Thank you! 59.103.142.119 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Wikipedia summarizes the information presented in reliable sources. ◢  Ganbaruby! </i>  (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2021
Want to edit the initial statement because Wikipedia should be reporting what something is without bias. Men going there own way is a right to live your life as you please without harming others just like a women going there own way would be. No speculation or "reading between the lines" is warranted. Would Wikipedia write the same thing about women going there own way? I'm sure that there are women and men who don't like the "going there own way" of thinking, but in a free society distasteful practices and ideas are welcome and freedom supersedes revulsion. Please re-right the the piece in an objective and non-one-sided manner. Thank you. 2601:241:400:404:91A9:E936:23CE:83FE (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please also see the many discussions about this in the past on this talk page and in its archives. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

MGTOW Wikipedia Why?
This article is why Wikipedia needs a reset button - The concept and description of an outlook should come first from a proponent of the outlook and then in later sections should have for and against points cited. Wikipedia articles shouldn’t start with topic definitions supplied by those critical of the topic and then add more critical ones as the article reads.

A number of parroted criticisms from loosely allied journal authors and political organizations pushing an agenda does not rise to consensus.

As a first tier, find good quality extended citation worthy quotes from a well known reputable proponents of the viewpoint and use that quote as the basis of the viewpoint’s explanation.

A number of anecdotal academic studies of social media posts is insufficient to form a basis delineating the viewpoint. Such academic articles are just an unreliable non scientific anecdote collection from which no reliable conclusions can be drawn.

Wikipedia can be better than conjectures drawn from unreliable data sets of anecdotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:F5D3:7B73:B450:9A7C (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing?


 * I will note that your description of how you think this article ought to be formatted is not supported by policy; we do not describe groups in the ways they (or proponents) describe themselves, but rather by how they are described in reliable sources. Peer-reviewed journals are generally reliable sources on Wikipedia, but if you have a concern with a specific source please feel free to raise it. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 10:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There seems to be the suggestion here that Wikipedia's standards for reliability are somehow lacking, and that improving them would "fix" this article. If that's so, I'm sure this IP will have little or no trouble producing such high quality sources which contradict the assertions made here, and explaining what makes those sources superior. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The first 6 sources cited in defining the term are condemning MGTOW or labeling it as a hate group. Use a broader citation range to include proponents of MGTOW such as books from Amazon search for advocates of MGTOW books.   This shutdown is the same tactic used by racists to negate any viewpoint contrary to the racist’s belief.  Wikipedia should be better than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:f5d3:7b73:b450:9a7c (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please find one? The most reliable such source would be good, according to our reliable sources policy? And let us know how it describes the community. and please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end of your comment Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I do believe I asked you to present some sources and explain what makes them superior. You have done neither. As to the first clause of my request; books sold by Amazon are not necessarily reliable, else I'm afraid we're about to face a galaxy-wide insurgency of Tahni forces, and only the Commonwealth Marine Corps and their famous power-armored Drop Troopers can save us. Regarding the latter part; sources which condemn the group are not necessarily inferior, if the group merits condemnation.
 * Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end of it ( ~ ) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Misogyny- a remark
This article makes it clear that the movement regarding men separating from women is misogynistic, but the equivalent movement for women- Feminist separatism- does not note that the movement is misandrist. I'm not saying which one is accurate, but it seems fairly clear that either this article is biased into saying MGOTW is misogynist, the Feminist separatist article is biased in saying that the movement is not misandrist, or both of these are true. I may be completely wrong and the MGTOW is full of misogynists that are never found outside of feminist straw-man arguments, but I doubt it. 118.208.172.85 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The editors of this article are totally one-sided. The fact their cited sources are from mainstream sites says it all. Like, what do they know about MGTOW or the manosphere anyway? 69.3.128.162 (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This article describes MGTOW as misogynist because that's how reliable sources describe MGTOW. If you are arguing that we should stop doing so because of what other articles are doing, that likely won't succeed (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). If you find a number of reliable sources that describe feminist separatism as misandrist, you might bring those up at the relevant talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Where are those so called "reliable" sources? only sources I see in this page are articles that are in conflicts of interest and should be removed alltoughter. Why is it that the Dutch wikipedia page is actually impartial and correct, but the English page has links to articles that are in conflicting with the actual theme discussed here? Why are articles writen by a (confirmed by the source) Feminist linked to this page? this is certainly a conflict in interest. according to https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/11/donna-zuckerberg-social-media-misoyny-violence-classical-antiquity-not-all-dead-white-men? and I quote: "This twist is especially galling for Zuckerberg, an avowed feminist who has dedicated her career to the classics. “Anybody with an interest in the field of social justice should not ignore this trend,” she says.". So please remove any pointers to this person's one-sided opinion, as this is clearly in violation of wikipedia's impartial point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordaur (talk • contribs) 13:49 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You are new here, and I don't think you are familiar with the relevant terminology that we use when discussing articles. A conflict of interest, in the way the phrase is used here, is about an editor writing content about a subject they're connected with. I think that what you're saying is that certain sources may be biased, because of who wrote them. There is some discussion of this at the reliable sources guidelines, particularly at the section WP:BIASED (but I'd strongly recommend reading the guidelines in their entirety). If you think that there is a policy-based reason to remove one or more sources you should explain why, with reference to our policies (I've just put a welcome template on your talk page with lots of useful links). As for the Dutch Wikipedia article - different Wikimedia projects are run separately, by different people and with different local policies - I can't comment on their article on the same subject. Best Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * reading both articles you provided, it is more clear to me that wikipedia is a very biased website, clearly not interested in the 'truth', but rather the current socially accepted 'truth'. wich is a shame. i'll keep it at that. I have no intention at editting this article, as I do not care about online 'truths', but i find it verry disapointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordaur (talk • contribs) 14:19 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't really interested in 'truth' per se; I mean, we want the content of our articles to be true, but since we ourselves have no way of determining what is and is not true (that would be original research), we instead we rely upon verifiability. We aim to summarise what reliable sources say; when reliable sources say different things, we aim to neutrally reflect those differences, giving each of them due weight. I think that's what is being done at this article, but you are welcome to point to specific concerns about it; if, as you say, you are no longer interested, I'm happy to let this drop. Best Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia isn't really interested in 'truth' per se; I mean, we want the content of our articles to be true, but since we ourselves have no way of determining what is and is not true " exactly this,... this should be at every head, of every article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordaur (talk • contribs) 14:36 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Meh - that would get a bit repetitive to read wouldn't it? If you're interested, you can read more about it at WP:VNT. By the way, you can sign your posts by typing four tildes (like this: ~ ), or by clicking on the 'sign your posts on talk pages' button. That way people can see who is saying what (plus, pings don't work if you don't sign). Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is solely concerned with what reliable journalistic and academic sources have to say, rather than proclamations by self-proclaimed arbiters of truth. We're not interested in your opinions.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See . --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, if Wikipedia is actually concerned about what reliable sources have to say in the article, then the editors would make it clear that it’s the opinion of these clearly biased sources rather than being stated as fact like this article does. But that’s not the case now is it? It absolutely must be misogynistic and women hating and nothing else because Tanya from the MIT Tech says so. A science and technology magazine is engaging in biased political writing and that’s considered a trustworthy source? At least try to hide the bullshit, I mean come on. “Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community...” yeah definitely neutral. If you want to write an article about the topic of MGTOW, you leave the opinions out of the area that proclaims facts. It would’ve been no trouble at all to create a sub section dealing with the different way people view the group and what they think of it. It’s dishonest to do otherwise. Just like it would be to proclaim all feminists as misandrist, anti-men’s rights, and perpetuating toxic femininity. Qixonar (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case the "sub section" would be the entire article, since reliable, independent sources consistently define MGTOW that way. Not just one source as you disingenuously claim. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if you don't think MGTOW is an “anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community...” is neutral, all you have to do is provide some independent, reliable and secondary sources who disagree. If you have no sources to back your claims, then you have no argument here.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021
MGTOW is not anti-feminist nor misogynistic, the acronym itself describes what it's about. Also so called pick up artists are not part of it, it wouldn't make sense: a PUA actively seeks contact with women, whereas MGTOW don't. Thanks. 93.46.200.35 (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please frame your request in terms of "Change X to Y", and provide reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think you may have misread. MGTOW and pick-up artists are both members of the manosphere, but this article makes no claim that pick-up artists are a part of MGTOW. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we're all getting tired of responding to this exact complaint from SPAs and unregistered users who seem to have no interest in the basics of how Wikipedia works. Would it save time to add a FAQ to the top of the page along the lines of other controversial topics (e.g. )? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea. In fact, I think that all pages subject to this sort of repeated-ad-nauseum complaint should have an FAQ, and have been the primary author of 3 or 4 of them. I'd be happy to get one started, unless someone has a serious objection to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed that that sounds like a great idea, and more than happy to have someone else do the work GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 12:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a time sensitive project at the moment, but I'll be able to start writing later today. If you (or anyone else) has any specific questions other than the obvious "why misogynist?" "why white supremacist?" stuff you'd like to see addressed, leave them here or at my user talk and I'll be sure to include them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

FAQ page
I created an FAQ with 2 Q&As, and grabbed a few sources from the article to support the answers. I went ahead and added it here, to make for a convenient link for editing. Here's another: Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/FAQ. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  15:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of adding a "How do I get this changed?" type question to it with instructions on how to find RSes and make a case here (see also WP:FIXBIAS). I'd like to see what other regulars here think of that first, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good! I've added a third question and edited the existing ones, let me know if you have any objections. As for "how do I get this changed", no objection—I wonder if we should just suggest edit requests? WP:ER has good instructions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a great third question you added. I do have a slight preference for duplicating the references here, but not enough to argue over it, just to point it out like this.
 * As for the "how do I fix it?" question: I've found that the SPA IPs who usually want to make these changes are often reluctant to read any page other than the one they're on, and that quoting such instructions in replies to them can be helpful when dealing with sealioning, as it creates a hoop for the sealion to jump through, and implies a tasty fish at the end (there's a joke about WP:TROUT in there, but I'm too lazy to figure it out) . Having some short instructions (read: find reliable sources and present them, along with the suggested change) right there in the FAQ facilitates those things.
 * We should absolutely include a link to WP:ER in it, though, and likely suggest making an edit request rather than suggesting they boldly edit the article themselves, as it might head off edit warring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Roger that, I've put the references back in rather than linked to them. I think you're perhaps more of an optimist than I am that people actually read FAQs, but it sounds like a good strategy either way. Worst case scenario is people don't read it and we're right where we were without the FAQ. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have doubt this FAQ will be studiously ignored by all those coming here to whine about the fact that WP calls men who define their lives by their hatred and avoidance of women misogynist.
 * But it's presence makes for a convenient way to encompass a large number of refutations into a single, 4-word sentence. I dreamily imagine the day when one can no longer peruse the archives without stumbling over the piles of edit requests answered with:
 * ❌ Please read the FAQ. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've from #4 that linked to FIXBIAS. I think we should stick to the most relevant WP:P&Gs for the FAQ, since they're more widely cited and supported by consensus. Also, other questions address bias and reliable sources, and I expect users who  bother to read them might bypass #4 if it seems merely repetitive. Feel free to adjust as needed, and thanks for the work! --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mostly like the changes to the wording.
 * As for the FIXBIAS link, I think it has value in that it goes into detail on the process that's very briefly described in the answer. What would you think of listing a few relevant essays at the end of the answer? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually I think a link to Consensus with a brief explanation might be better, as a rejoinder to these tedious edit requests that ignore talk page consensus altogether. (The first step in #4 should probably be something like, "Look through the talk page and archives to see if your concerns have been raised before".) We could also add a brief explanation of what makes sources reliable to #1 or #2. Overall I think we should limit answers to three or four sentences if we want anyone to read them at all. What other essays did you have in mind? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Other essays I had in mind were WP:1AM and a third which was basically a different (earlier) version of WP:FIXBIAS, but phrased in a very different way (and which I can't recall the WL to...).
 * But the more I think about it, the less I want to change anything from how it looks now. I share your concern about the length of the answers, and I think we're close enough to that point that not adding more is advisable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, do you think a brief explanation of WP:Consensus (which WP:1AM refers to) or a link to WP:Talk page guidelines should be included? To me those seem like pretty important things for people to be aware of before they start asking for changes. By themselves they might even be enough to stop some complaints from getting to the edit-request stage. I was thinking of something like this:I omitted the part about sources that explicitly refute the article, which seems implied. I know the word "changes" gets a bit repetitive, but I couldn't seem to get around that without being vague. Thoughts? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that looks good. I think the bit about sources refuting the claims of those used in the article was probably the weakest bit, even though it was one of the most pertinent. It would seem to want its own question, but it's so broadly applicable and one of the things most commonly explained to new editors on controversial articles that I don't know how well it fits as a brief aside, like that.
 * The word "changes" is not used too much, I think.
 * I like this proposal because it makes the answer very obviously instructions, whereas my first draft and the current version aren't so obvious about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK! I've made these changes along with some other minor modifications. Once again, feel free to adjust as needed. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:D1A0:FF7:88EF:1776 (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia
MGTOW is an acronym for Men Going Their Own Way, an online social movement and backlash to feminism where men renounce interactions with women and seek to define and live out their masculinity on their own terms.

Taken from: https://www.dictionary.com/e/acronyms/mgtow/

Short, to the point and unbiased.

Why is this article one long argument on why MGTOW is bad and not just a short explanation on what it is?

I get that the writers of this article want to warn people about MGTOW. But Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia, not a social movement for making a better world. Google provides plenty of articles that warn about MGTOW. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.246.74 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Google provides plenty of articles that warn about MGTOW. I think you just undermined your point. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, summarizes what reliable sources say about a subject. If the majority of reliable sources discuss a subject in negative terms, then so will Wikipedia. This is a feature, not a bug--if, as you say, there are plenty of articles that "warn about" (i.e. discuss MGTOW in negative terms), then Wikipedia, by also discussing MGTOW in negative terms, is doing it right. There is a concept of due weight to Wikipedia's attempt to be neutral; the most neutral POV for a Wikipedia article to take is not always the blandest, most non-judgmental one. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is this article one long argument on why MGTOW is bad and not just a short explanation on what it is? We don't say it's bad. We say it's anti-feminist, misogynist, male-supremacist, and aligned with the racist alt-right. If anyone thinks those are "bad", it's not because of anything in this article. The answer to the second question is given above: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. And you left out 92% of that article anyway. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool. The one response that, it is not bad, we just call it a lot of bad words, is kinda funny.
 * But the other about summarizing reliable sources proves my point. Why the need to be a google summary? Wikipedia should just let people know what something is and let them find information on their own. IMO. Kinda like an encyclopedia you would find in a library. Because it is digital you get to write an unlimited amount of pages, but maybe you don´t have to. Maybe being limited, like in the printing age, is not all bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.246.74 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it sounds like you fundamentally don't like what Wikipedia is (or at least what that means for this particular article). You're welcome to hold that opinion, of course, but you're not going to accomplish anything by trying to discuss it on this talk page; we're not going to change Wikipedia's fundamental structure and policy on this talk page, and we're not going to make an exception on this one article, either. If you want to actually change how Wikipedia fundamentally works, well, there are in theory other, wider venues where you can start that discussion, but I can tell you with confidence that such a discussion would have a snowball's chance in hell of actually changing anything, so I'm not going to waste both of our time by making a suggestion for where to go about doing that. Feel free to do it on your own if you like. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See Purpose and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The contents of this article are more than a "google summary". But if you're serious about removing frivolous material that benefits no one, consider starting with Category:Lists of fictional characters. Enjoy! --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a dictionary. An encyclopedia is not a dictionary, so we couldn't just cite a dictionary definition and stop there - we have to summarize what WP:RSes say about the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
The changes you are trying to introduce are contentious and need consensus. Please suggest your changes here rather than continuing to make edits to the page, as you are edit warring. See WP:BRD. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey! I hope all is well! Ok, I will go through everything piece by piece.

" offshoot of the men's rights movement that has been described as being". I moved a portion of the article.

The original manifesto of the group was " "The goal is to instill [sic] masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!""  - This puts in the original manifesto of MGTOW

"Women Against Feminism" - There is Men against modern feminism, which some people feel is not about balance or equality but women power over men.



On the next diff

I quoted Anna Zuckerberg, who is quoted write above it by someone else, but wasn't removed. "	The basis of some of the ideals of MGTOW is a belief that "women are so unfaithful and untruthful that they often force men to raise other men’s children, thus financially ‘cuckolding’ them." There is also a belief that "women are extremely likely to make false accusations of sexual and domestic violence, in order to damage men socially, steal their money or even have them jailed.”"  This victimization is stronger in the Me Too Era and is seen in that, 27 per cent of men polled said that they now avoided one-to-one meetings with women for fear or a false accusation. "



Next one, is the belief that it is overwhelmingly white male. I see there is a following amongst black males. for it



There is also a theory of the basis of MGTOW from the Movie Fight Club

Next one " The mission statement is that that " “refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility.” "

The belief that the MGTOW mission wants equality and non subjagation of men. Something that many blacks feel in society.

Next one, why did MGTOW come about.



The origination of MGTOW from NoMa'am. it said it was original research but I actually went to the blog and there is a post about Al Bundy wearing a No Ma'am shirt. 



Next, I wanted to expand on black male MGTOW, but it was removed.

There is a following amongst African American males who are part of MGOTW and have concerns about feminism and have a desire to uplift black men.



Essentially, I wanted to expand the article. I think it comes off as an attack page. I don't think that my additions will have consensus even though I feel they present a more balanced article. I am glad I didn't go to Critical Race Theory. I feel there is probably a real war over there. BlackAmerican (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, so, it seems like many of your changes are not supported by the sources you cite.
 * There is also a theory of the basis of MGTOW from the Movie Fight Club -- you cite this to this Independent article, but the article says nothing about such a theory. It draws an analogy between Fight Club and MGTOW in its first paragraph, but doesn't say anything about Fight Club being the origin of MGTOW.
 * There is a following amongst African American males who are part of MGOTW and have concerns about feminism and have a desire to uplift black men -- you cite this to this article from the Black Youth Project, but the article is not talking about MGTOW; it is talking about the "Black manosphere". It only mentions MGTOW to contrast it to the Black manosphere, to highlight how they are different things. It does not support your argument.
 * The origination of MGTOW from NoMa'am. it said it was original research but I actually went to the blog and there is a post about Al Bundy wearing a No Ma'am shirt. -- First and foremost, blogs are not reliable sources, so you would need a different source for this statement regardless. But even apart from that...I have no idea why you think a picture of Al Bundy wearing a No Ma'am shirt supports your argument that MGTOW comes from No Ma'am.
 * The original manifesto of the group was [...]-- You cite this to the Vice article, but the Vice article doesn't claim this to be the manifesto of MGTOW--it calls it a manifesto published a decade ago, which is in stark contrast to the definition that is currently offered by MGTOW.com. A manifesto published a decade ago that reliable sources have said are very different from the modern group we're describing here should not be placed in the lede, and even as a historical mention, you're going to need more than this one article to prove that it's significant to the development of MGTOW as a whole.
 * For the rest, you are selectively quoting the GQ article to present an uncritical view of MGTOW's beliefs. This is misrepresenting the article, which is quite explicit in its opinion of MGTOW: the title is "The ‘Men Going Their Own Way’ movement is the Taliban of the manosphere", the subtitle is "But don’t be complacent: their virulent misogyny is going mainstream", and says of the manopshere (a superset of MGTOW, which the article goes on to say is one of its most extreme subcultures) "far too often a digital sewer for 50,000 shades of misogyny", saying that, in exploring MGTOW communities, "it took, oh, about 90 seconds for MGTOW to turn this brother’s stomach" and that "MGTOW are sorry excuses for men". It does include the statistics you cite, but by removing them from the wider context of the article, you are making it seem like the statistics give some justification to MGTOW's beliefs, when the article is clearly not doing so; it's citing those statistics as evidence of the danger of MGTOW, not evidence of its validity.
 * Ultimately, if you feel that Wikipedia's coverage is too negative, then you've chosen the wrong sources to try to reverse that, because they're all quite clearly as negative. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 911, I would like to report a murder. Jorm (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jorm, I have other responsibilities. If it stays as it, I won't care. BlackAmerican (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Drop the line here that you will unlikely get any changes to MGTOW unless they are in an academic journal and that the change is in line with the existing page.  Even then, you would need many many straightforward simple quotes to get a change to the page.  This is how Wikipedia works and is a buffer to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:DCF7:717B:AAF1:DE4F (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Manosphere
"manosphere", maybe this is american english, but it is no proper english. It is advised to use common terms outside of sociologists circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c0:df35:6e00:a441:3c39:32c:dffd (talk • contribs)
 * Advised by whom? The word "manosphere" is a neologism, sure, but on Wikipedia, we generally go with calling things by their common names, and as the manosphere article demonstrates, this is the common term for the phenomenon. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Point: "american english" and "proper english" aren't proper English, either. Neither, for that matter, is "sociologist circles". It should be "American English", "proper English" and "sociological circles", respectively. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:NEO says neologisms are words that "do not appear in general-interest dictionaries". I can find several general-interest dictionary entries online for manosphere,  and the term has been covered in the popular press. I suppose we could replace all instances of the word manosphere with collection of anti-feminist websites and online communities that also includes the men's rights movement, incels, and pickup artists, but once this basic definition is given, it seems clear enough. But wait, is incel proper English yet? Or pickup artist? Oh dear. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * TERF exists, too, so never let it be said that Wikipedia isn't even-handed in how it refers to groups with shitty beliefs. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2021
TheOldWayTheNewWay (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC) I believe mgtow being labeled as "mysogynistic" is a gross overstatement, that is rooted in opinion. Let us have facts.

Agree TheOldWayTheNewWay (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see the many previous discussions on this topic. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you agreeing with yourself? That's a unique method of argumentation, I must say. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It isn't a misogynistic.  It is men who don't like the changes in society.  It is like saying feminism is anti men, when it was originally proposed as being equality between men and women.  BlackAmerican (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * None of our personal opinions about MGTOW are pertinent here. Multiple published, reliable sources call MGTOW misogynistic. If you want to change this, it's on you to show equivalent sources backing you up. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:FLAT BlackAmerican (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not seeing your point. Are you saying the statement that MGTOW is misogynist is like saying the Earth is flat? If so, it should be easy to refute with references to published, reliable sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The analogous concept to feminism would be the men's movement, not MGTOW. MGTOW is a small, extreme faction of the men's movement. There are similar subgroups of self-described feminists who express bigotry (TERFs, for example) too, but describing them as such does not somehow imply that everyone in the broader movement holds those views. If you happen want my broader personal opinions on your suggestion that MGTOW is somehow analogous to feminists (suggesting that you believe they are fighting for gender equality), I have expressed them in the past:, though they're not particularly relevant to improving this article (and I get the feeling you are more acquainted with MGTOW than that editor was). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the non-misogynist part of the Men's movement is still alive, and can generally be found operating under the term Men's liberation movement. It's decidedly pro-feminist and progressive, as is necessary for any such movement to avoid becoming the cesspit that is the current men's rights movement.
 * My point here is not correction, as you are entirely correct, but to get this information explicitly placed in this thread for the sake of any readers.
 * I'd add that the claim that MGTOW is misogynistic is not an opinion or a distortion, but a verifiable fact, confirmed by virtually ever single reliable source to discuss the movement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion. The actual movement does not advocate misogyny.  If a few random people say misgynistic things, it doesnt make the collective misogynistic.
 * "Mgtow aims for total male separatism, including forgoing children, avoiding marriage and limiting involvement with women." according to MSNBC.  Limited involvement based on fear.  Which can be said to by gynophobia.
 * The fear is based on false accusations. "He started his group last year after a 39-year-old business owner was sentenced to six months in prison for grabbing a woman’s buttocks in a Korean soup restaurant. The case provoked outrage that a man could be convicted on no evidence beyond the victim’s claims."
 * "MGTOW was created by online aliases Solaris and Ragnar in the 2000s, when they penned a manifesto calling for men and women to adhere to traditional gender roles and to fight for pared back govermment" There is also an apparent goal of being a herbivore man (based in Japan) who have the goal of no long terms relationship.
 * "MGTOWs aim to achieve financial independence as quickly as possible by avoiding female contact in sexual contexts, particularly single mothers looking for a long-term partner, for obvious reasons, so they can maintain financial independence."
 * "Under MGTOW philosophy, men are urged to rid themselves of the expectations foisted upon them by society. Their orientation is towards independence and freedom, with strong parallels drawn to the libertarian movement’s cause of reducing government, taxes, and harassment from others. "
 * "men going our own way by forging our own identities and paths to self-defined success; cutting through collective ideas of what a man is.”
 * "MGTOW to show their solidarity against the extremist views of feminism and even women. "
 * There also seems to be a relation to Mythopoetic men's movement BlackAmerican (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is also a good reading. BlackAmerican (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just off the top of my head, WP:DAILYMAIL would disagree with you that anything posted by dailymail.co.uk is worth reading. Apart from that, though, I'm not really sure what changes you're suggesting. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd note that at least the first three sources you provided all describe the group as being angry at and mistrustful of women, which goes quite a ways towards undermining your claim that they're not misogynists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You have provided some sources that describe MGTOW as a separatist movement, as a group of men who forgo relationships/marriage/children, as men who believe that women are exploiting them financially, etc. These are statements that are already made in the article. But none of your sources contradict the statement that MGTOW is fundamentally based in misogyny. A source that doesn't happen to describe MGTOW as misogynist does not contradict other sources that describe it as such, in the same way that an article about the sky that doesn't mention that the sky is blue can't be used to contradict the many sources that say it is. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * x 3 To give a longer analysis of your sources that aren't the Daily Mail (which I did not dignify by reading):
 * The Times of India and Japan Forward links are blogs; they are not written by professional reporters or sociologists (the former written by an entrepeneur, the latter by a "former sushi chef"), and are of no use as reliable sources for anything.
 * You've already brought up the Independent article, and it talks about MGTOW's hatred for women, so if anything, it supports the misogynist label.
 * The CNBC piece talks about a Silicon Valley MRA movement which it certainly doesn't explicitly support, providing only anecdotes from members and contrasting with statements like "We should worry about whether the women-in-tech movement has gone too far sometime after a couple of these [incidents of sexual harrassment] aren’t regularly happening anymore"; it only talks about MGTOW at the end of the article as a radical fringe of this movement, and talks about how MGTOW message baords discuss topics like “Ever work for a woman? Roll up your sleeves and share your horror story”--it might not explicitly call MGTOW misogynist, but it is definitely not supportive of the statement that MGTOW isn't misogynist.
 * You try to synthesize that CNBC article with a completely unrelated CNN article--a prohibited form of original research--to draw some conclusion about fear of false reporting being the basis of MGTOW. The CNN piece does not talk about MGTOW at all, so it is irrelevant here.
 * Again, your sources are either seriously unreliable, or they do not support the conclusions you're attempting to draw from them. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Likt w
 * You didn't miss anything by not reading the Daily Mail article. It also doesn't mention MGTOW at all, and is apparently just a part of BlackAmerican's campaign to push that "feminism is bad, actually, and this woman said so". It's by Cassie Jaye, the producer of The Red Pill, an MRA-sympathetic documentary that is also not usable as a source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So 19 posts in total makes it a campaign? At what point did I say or imply feminism is bad? Do you know that I am a black individual? Do you seriously think that I am against another group in America? Lets not make any personal attacks! I fight for equality and recognition.  I believe in equality of the sexes in terms of opportunities.  I believe that men and women have biological differences.  I am not opposed to LGBT rights.  I am not opposed to the civil rights of anyone!  So with that being said, I am fine with black equality, I don't think that blacks are better than any other group.  I a fine with with female rights, I don't believe that females are better than any other group.  I don't support black supremacy.  I don't support female supremacy.   I support equality and striving for equality.  I don't have some of the views that have been shown on Feminist views on transgender topics nor do I support the exclusionary beliefs of TERF ( trans-exclusionary radical feminist.)  I like to find balance and understand everyone's talking points.  Like what was said by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"  I have no agenda.  I would like to see more black topics on wikipedia, but that doesn't mean I won't delve into other things in a periodic sense. BlackAmerican (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, 19 is not a small number of posts. And I can't say anything about your beliefs in particular, but it is definitely not unheard of for people in one marginalized group to oppose the equality movement of another marginalized group. But to take a more...charitable view of your contribs here, I might guess that you're falling into the same trap as many who complain about the Incel article, wherein you either see yourself as part of this movement or at least relating closely to it and the life choices and situations it espouses. You believe yourself to be not misogynist, but if you see yourself as tied to MGTOW or incels or whatever, and we describe those groups as misogynist, then clearly the articles are wrong, since you're a non-misogynist MGTOW/incel (or "ally" thereof).
 * There are a few problems with that, though. First, as far as Wikipedia goes, personal experience and anecdotal evidence is not a substitute for reliable sources. Wikipedia goes by what the reliable sources say, full stop. If it's not said in a source, it has no place on Wikipedia. That's the essence of our fundamental policy of verifiability, and it's a cornerstone of Wikipedia. So if the sources overwhelmingly describe MGTOW as misogynist, then we will too. If you want to change that, then you need to show us enough sources that support your argument to change the overall view. While I definitely understand the discomfort of the situation I have hypothesized, where the articles seem to be calling you something you feel you're not based on allegiance to some group, your personal experience is unfortunately not enough to change Wikipedia.
 * Second, I wonder whether there might be a categorization error here. This is something we've discussed extensively on the incel talk page, wherein a person who identifies themself as an incel comes on to the talk page, offended that we are saying all these nasty things about incels, and by extension, them. Well, here's the thing--these articles are describing subcultures, not states of being. While sure, the literal denotation of the phrase "involuntary celibate" could be used to refer to anyone who doesn't have sex and wants to, that's not the sense in which we're using it in the article. As another example, if we took the term antifa literally, then it would incorporate much of the US population, since most people are (at least nominally) against fascism. But that's not what we're talking about in the article. So, if you find yourself relating to MGTOW, or even maybe following some of their ideas, like swearing off relationships with women (which is perfectly within your rights if that's what you want), you should still think twice about calling yourself a member or ally of MGTOW. You don't have to be a member of MGTOW to make your life choices, and if you *do* choose to call yourself one...well, if you really feel that this article doesn't describe you, maybe you should think about the company you're keeping, and whether they, by and large, hold the same values and ideals that you do, because choosing to align yourself with a group--especially publicly--does say something about you.
 * Anyway, this is all just food for thought; like I say, we get this kind of issue a lot on many of the manosphere-related articles, so perhaps it has more relevance to other people than you. The big takeaway in terms of Wikipedia editing should be that, again, if you want to make changes that go against the current sources, you're going to need equally convincing sources of your own that support the changes you're trying to make, and we just haven't seen any yet. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In that same vein, I've met several male Aces, who might (somewhat uncharitably) be referred to as men going their own way, despite being pro-feminist and non-misogynist. One of them identified with this movement, and only adopted the term "Ace" when it was described to him and he realized that it matched his self-identify better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Writ_Keeper I am not a " non-misogynist MGTOW/incel " nor am I an ally. I write for balance and I believe articles should present a balance. I could go on and put in the beginning of feminism that it is a racist movement. . I can point to the fact that this exists Feminism and racism, I can find articles saying that feminism presents a strong racist history, there are more and more articles about feminism and racism and even this. Does that mean that it should be in the lead of an article? Everything I showed you is pretty good sources. Some are even scholarly level sources. Just because I wrote or tried to expand an article does not make me a member or an ally of a group. I wrote an article on Baird Jones, this does not make me a club promotor in NYC nor an ally. I wrote an article on Dianne Durham, this does not make me a black gymnast. Just because I contribute to an article does not make me that article BlackAmerican (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the lead of Feminism, feel free to take it to that article. Back to the actual topic at hand: you have yet to present any convincing, policy-based argument that "misogynist" is improperly weighted here. You have attempted to argue that the group is not misogynist, but none of the sources you've found to support that point of view actually do so. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

MGTOW and Men's Rights Movement association
Whilst MGTOW may stem from the men's rights, and is unarguably anti-feminist, I do not believe that the movement for men's rights should be grouped into this 'manosphere' of anti-feminism.

Mens rights is a movement fighting for equality in often overlooked areas, but do not wish to prevent women from having the same rights as men. Mens rights is not anti-feminist. Mens rights is pro humanity.

CHANGE: Remove 'mens rights movement' from the opening section. 2A00:23C5:FE0C:F700:A8DB:2775:EA39:9357 (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you wish to show that the men's rights movement is not a part of the manosphere, you will need some strong sourcing to contradict the existing sourcing which describes it as such. Is it possible you are conflating the much broader men's movement with the men's rights movement subgroup (aka "men's rights activists")? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021
The group is not a misogynistic group. They have valid points and it is unfair to paint them this way. 81.14.208.162 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ at the top of the page.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this article is fair to either men or women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.154.128 (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Subpage for misogyny discussion
I think we should create Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Misogyny and indicate with a talk page header that all discussion of whether MGTOW is misogynistic should go there (preferably with RS in hand). We can then archive new comments or edit requests there. This subpage practice for frequent challenges to established consensus seems relatively common in DS topic areas (e.g. Talk:Ayurveda, Talk:Love Jihad). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, I would've thought that previous talk sections would be a better deterrent to frivolous edit requests than a page header (after all, if people read/listened to headers, they'd read the FAQ), so I'm not sure what the real benefit is, but I'm certainly not opposed to the idea, especially if it's SOP on other pages. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the benefit of splitting it off. This isn't a hugely active talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with GorillaWarfare on this. And we also have the FAQ at the top of this page. -- The Anome (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, everyone, and thanks for considering it. In case it matters, I was wrong about Talk:Ayurveda anyway; they don't have a subpage they just have a notice that they'll delete certain anti-consensus comments that don't make policy arguments. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

26 August 2021
CHANGE: Remove 'Misogynistic' from the description, this will negatively affect people's understanding of the definition. This also is shameful and a misinformed generalization. Not to deny the possibility of certain individuals being misogynistic towards woman. I think the term "Men Going Their Own Way" cannot imply them to being misogynistic, as this claim seems the derive from a subjective feeling or experience, not from facts. My concern with this is people like myself looking up a term and being misinformed by an opinion rather than a fact, especially since it is stated as a fact. My advice would be either to remove the word from the definition or either clarify it being an opinion, even if it is a generalized opinion. I think it should be clear. No room to spread fake-news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cankr (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the answer to FAQ #1 above (here is a direct link). To reiterate: Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, and reliable sources describe MGTOW as misogynist. If you feel that's incorrect, you need to provide similarly-reliable sources that say otherwise. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They're not misogynistic because of their name, they're misogynistic because they harass women online, whom they believe all to be duplicitous, gold-digging harlots. See also the FAQ at the top of this page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it poisons the well. Most of us are not Misogynistic or against women, we just want to have our lives without a significant other. We are anti-incel, we say they are responsible for their own fate, I believe this fact contradicts the accusation we are Misogynistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PointyPenBoy (talk • contribs) 22:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Any changes need reliable sources to support them. Your own personal experience with the community is not usable as a source, see WP:OR. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MANDY clearly applies. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2021
MGTOW is not misogynistic. Barrybranton1 (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Requests need to be in the (change X to Y) format and be backed up by reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Uhhhhh. This don’t seem right
That first paragraph paints a picture I’m not sure is fair. I don’t see how men not doing the nasty is tastier… 2600:1700:8150:B110:5CEC:94F4:E531:7237 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ above for more info, but in a nutshell: the current text is supported by reliable sources, and if you want it to change, you will need to provide reliable sources that support your view. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)